Simončič T., Bončina A. 2015b. Improvements of the concept of forest functions in Slovenia = [Predlogi izboljšav koncepta funkcij gozda v Sloveniji]. An unpublished manuscript.
We elaborated possible improvements of the concept of forest functions in Slovenia based on a comprehensive literature overview, an examination of the approaches used abroad and an exhaustive evaluation of the effectiveness of the concept of forest functions as seen by professional foresters and other experts in the field of multi-objective forest management in Slovenia using a questionnaire (n=162) and participatory workshop (n=66). Two alternative models to the current concept (Model A) were elaborated: Model B (“technical”) and Model C (“conceptual”). The first deals with improvements to the technical part of the designation: fewer forest function types and their ranks, simplified overlapping and clearer maps. Model C is conceptually different – it emphasizes identification of (potential) conflict areas, prioritization of forest functions and clear definition of management measures to promote the desired forest functions. Both models were evaluated by a group of forestry planners (n=65) and final improvements were suggested. In addition, the models were illustrated with three case studies representing forest, agrarian and urban landscapes. The research findings provide a basis for improving the legal framework of multi-objective forest management in Slovenia.
1 INTRODUCTION
In Slovenia forest management has been based on the principles of sustainability, the close-to-nature approach and multifunctionality (Gašperšič et al., 2001). Close-to-nature silviculture has been an important tool for the practice of multi-objective forest management. Close-to-nature forestry has been seen as a land management strategy that combines economic necessities with multiple social and environmental requirements by contributing to the maintenance of biodiversity, ecosystems and diversified landscapes;
offering attractive areas for recreation and leisure activities; and leaving options for future uses and developments (Schmithüsen, 2007). The multi-objective approach has also been supported by the development of landscape-level planning (i.e. forest development planning) (Anko, 2005), by a participatory planning approach that allows for public collaboration in forest management decisions (Bončina, 2004), and by several institutional (public forest service) and financial instruments that help in combining private management goals with public interests (ZG, 1993). The so called “concept of forest functions” has been developed as one of the main policy and planning tools for practicing multi-objective forest management (ZG, 1993; Anko, 1995). The importance of forest functions is spatially recognized with the elaboration of forest function maps; in the
Simončič, T. Forest functions in multi-objective forest management.
Doctoral dissertation. Ljubljana, Univ. of Lj., Biotechnical Faculty, 2016
61
designation process forest functional units are delineated, and forest functions are ranked according to their importance for forest management given prescribed criteria (Anko, 1995; Pravilnik…, 1998). The functional units are created by overlapping different forest function layers; a functional unit has a specific combination of forest functions and their ranks, and if the combination changes, a new unit is delineated. The approach is partly based on methodology from Germany and Austria where maps of forest function areas have been an important tool for planning forest land use and mediating land use conflicts (e.g. Volk and Schirmer, 2003; WEP, 2006; Kuhn, 2011).
There are three fundamental bases for implementing the concept of forest functions in forest management. Firstly, integrative multi-objective forest management is legally accepted in Slovenia. The Slovenian constitution legally acknowledges the social, ecological and economic function of property (Ustava, 1991). This is reflected in the Forest Act, which equalizes the social, economic and ecological functions of forests regardless of their ownership (ZG, 1993; Pucelj Vidović, 2015). Secondly, not all forest areas are important for all forest functions to the same extent, even under the integration model. The importance of a particular function varies in space given the demands towards forests, potential of forest to deliver desired functions and management possibilities for their provision (Bachmann, 2005; Bončina, 2005). Therefore, forest functions are ranked according to the degree to which they are important (Pravilnik…, 2010). Prioritization of forest functions does not mean that functions are spatially segregated; in decision making all forest functions must be taken into consideration, but those with higher priorities are primarily promoted by forest management. Thirdly, the importance of forest functions changes in time given the demands and interests of society. Therefore, the designation of forest function areas is a dynamic process marked by the constant search for harmonization between societal demands, forest ecosystems and their ability to provide the desired services influenced by forest management.
The Forestry Act (ZG, 1993) describes functions as social, ecological and economic, and further divides them into 17 forest function types. Spatial prioritization of forest functions is a matter of forest planning regulations and internal planning directions (e.g. Pravilnik…, 1998; Posodobitev…, 2011). The Slovenia Forest Service (SFS) has the discretion to designate specific places in forests (i.e. forest function areas) that are of outstanding importance for their unique natural or cultural values, provide protection against natural hazards and provide drinking water or other forest services. This process was affirmed with a great deal of enthusiasm (Anko, 1995). Much time and effort was invested in the mapping procedures and harmonization of databases and maps between regional units of the SFS across Slovenia, with numerous institutions and individuals involved (e.g. Veselič et al., 2003). The designation of forest function areas has contributed to emphasizing the public importance of forests and has thus become an important tool for forest policy (ReNGP, 2007). It has also fostered better collaboration with the public, forest owners and other institutions (Bončina et al., 2014). In addition, forest function areas have become
Simončič, T. Forest functions in multi-objective forest management.
Doctoral dissertation. Ljubljana, Univ. of Lj., Biotechnical Faculty, 2016
62
influential in spatial planning by becoming an important basis for environmental impact assessment in forest areas (Bončina and Matijašić, 2010; Nastran et al., 2013).
Since its origins, the concept of forest functions has remained relatively unchanged, with only a few modifications having been made (Pravilnik…, 2010; Posodobitev…, 2011).
Recent practice has raised a number of concerns regarding the effectiveness of the concept of forest functions. The main ones are connected to complicated classification systems (e.g. Planinšek, 2010; Planinšek and Pirnat, 2012a; Simončič and Bončina, 2012); unclear or duplicated criteria for designation (Pogačnik, 1996; Pirnat, 2007; Bončina and Simončič, 2010; Planinšek and Pirnat, 2012b); a complicated overlapping system of different forest function areas, long mapping procedures, their weak importance for management and poorly defined management measures for the promotion of designated forest functions (Planinšek and Pirnat, 2012a; Simončič and Bončina, 2012); the lack of financial instruments for supporting forest functions, particularly on private lands;
inadequate designation of conflict areas and the lack of monitoring protocols for management effectiveness (e.g. Planinšek and Pirnat, 2012b; Simončič and Bončina, 2012). Given the lack of research in this area, accumulated experiences and identified shortcomings of the implementation of the concept on the ground, the concept needs to be revised, evaluated and improved. The objectives of our research were to 1) assess the advantages and weaknesses of the current approach to the concept of forest functions in the practice of multi-objective forest management, 2) elaborate improvements of the concept, and 3) evaluate the proposed improvements and recommend the main direction of changes.
2. ACTION PLAN
The research project was elaborated in the period 2009–2015. An action plan was divided into five phases (Figure 1):
1) Assessment of the current model (2009–2013), 2) Elaboration of alternative models (2013–2014), 3) Evaluation of the models (spring 2015),
4) Case study implementation (2014–2015),
5) Final management recommendations (on-going).
Phase 5 was not a part of this dissertation work; therefore, it is only briefly addressed at the end of the thesis (Chapter 5).
Simončič, T. Forest functions in multi-objective forest management.
Doctoral dissertation. Ljubljana, Univ. of Lj., Biotechnical Faculty, 2016
63
Model B:
“Technical”
ELABORATION OF ALTERNATIVE MODELS ASSESMENT OF THE CURRENT
MODEL
Literature overview and experiences from abroad
Evaluation of the current model Synthesis of recommendations
Model C:
“Conceptual”
EVALUATION OF MODELS
CASE STUDY IMPLEMENTATION Technical improvements
Case studies 1, 2, 3 Conceptual improvements
Case study 1
Figure 1: Action plan for improvements of the concept of forest functions.
2.1 ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT MODEL
The assessment of the current model (A) consisted of two main steps: 1) literature overview and analysis of approaches abroad and 2) evaluation of the concept of forest functions in Slovenia. The first was conducted on two levels:
Analysis of the concept of forest functions in CE
A detailed comparative analysis of the concept of forest functions was carried out. We conducted structured in-depth interviews with experts in forestry planning from 9 CE countries (1 representative per country). The respondents were selected based on their
Simončič, T. Forest functions in multi-objective forest management.
Doctoral dissertation. Ljubljana, Univ. of Lj., Biotechnical Faculty, 2016
64
professional background; the prerequisite was that the interviewees were among the main experts in the field of forest planning in each of the selected countries. The selected respondents came from universities, research institutions (leading researchers from forest management planning departments) or governmental bodies (ministries). All interviewed experts have rich experience in the fields of forest planning, forest functions and multi-objective forest management. After the interviews were conducted, the respondents collaborated with forestry practitioners who provided essential insights into the implementation of the concept of forest functions and supplemented and validated their answers. Moreover, site visits for a first-hand impression of the implementation of the concept in each of the studied countries were conducted with interviewed experts and practitioners on the ground to verify the responses gathered during the interviews. The sites in each country were selected by the interviewed experts and practitioners based on the following criteria: the case studies represented forest sites where multiple functions are designated; forestry maps were elaborated for the selected sites; conflicts in promoting multiple forest functions were likely to appear and thus multi-objective forest management was of paramount importance. The methods and results of this part of the research are presented in greater detail in the Chapter 2.1 of the dissertation (Simoncic et al., 2013). In addition, open interviews with forest planners from various cantons in Switzerland (e.g.
Jura, Graubünden, Zug) were carried out to discuss the implementation of the concept of forest functions on the ground.
Analysis of other spatially-based approaches to multi-objective forest management
We compared multi-objective forest management approaches in CE and the Pacific Northwest region of the USA (PNW). We selected PNW as representative of the relatively widespread approach of multi-objective forest management that is at the same time quite different to the CE approach. The aim was to study how spatially-based approaches function under different socio-economic settings. First, a comprehensive literature overview was done on the spatially-based approaches to multi-objective forest management used around the globe. Based on selected key words (priority area, allocation, forest functions, ecosystem services, spatially explicit approaches, segregation vs.
integration forest management), more than 100 references were found and compared. Then we elaborated a conceptual framework drawn up of a limited number of key characteristics or “dimensions,” which enabled us to describe the fundamental characteristics of forest function areas and other types of priorities areas, as well as to understand their importance for multi-objective forest management. We applied the framework to the selected case study regions. For CE one part of the information used was gathered from the above-mentioned interviews. In addition, we carried out a comprehensive overview and comparative research of scientific papers (e.g. Kräuchi et al., 2000; Dorren et al., 2004;
Brang et al., 2006; Konijnendijk et al., 2006; Bauerhansl et al., 2010; Riegert and Bader, 2010; Pistorius et al., 2012; Kaeser and Zimmermann, 2014) and grey literature such as national legislation (constitutions, acts, degrees), forest function mapping guidelines (e.g.
Volk and Schirmer, 2003; Swiss National…, 2004), forest development plans (e.g.
Regionaler …, 1999; Waldfunktionen Kartierung..., 2010) and international and national
Simončič, T. Forest functions in multi-objective forest management.
Doctoral dissertation. Ljubljana, Univ. of Lj., Biotechnical Faculty, 2016
65
reports (e.g. Konijnendijk, 1997; Parviainen et al., 2000; Parviainen and Frank, 2003;
EEA, 2005; Frank et al., 2007; MCPFE, 2007; Pröbstl et al., 2009). In the PNW the document review comprised Forest Service national forest land and resource management plans, planning documents required by the National Environmental Policy Act and other laws, USDA Forest Service Handbooks (Forest Service…, 2006; Special areas…, 2009), and reports (e.g. Forest ecosystem…, 1993; Smith et al., 2011). The assessment was also based on several years of research and observation of national forest planning including the recent application of the ecosystem services approach and collaborative efforts (e.g. Smith et al., 2011). In addition, nine comprehensive interviews were conducted for the purpose of this research. The interviewees included forest planners and managers from various forest service units of the PNW region, and representatives of forest collaboratives. Specifically, we conducted open interviews with forest planners and local experts in two regional forest service units (together 5 respondents), representatives of forest collaboratives (1 respondent), and researchers with regional and national level experience in the field of forest planning and natural resource management (3 respondents). In addition, several short interviews with forest managers from State of Oregon (1 representative) and representatives of private forest management (2 big private forest owners, 3 respondents from extension programme) were carried out. In addition, we visited several field sites and attended meetings with forest collaboratives, conferences and workshops. The presented results of this phase were limited to those relevant for elaboration of the alternative models. The detailed methods and results of this part of the research are presented in Chapter 2.2 of the dissertation (Simončič et al., 2015).
The second step – evaluation of the concept of forest functions in Slovenia – included five phases:
Phase 1: Literature overview
We carried out a comprehensive literature overview that included scientific research papers, reports and critical reviews. In addition, we analysed existing legal regulations regarding multi-objective forest management with specific emphasis on the Forestry Act, regulations on forest management planning and internal guidelines for designating forest function areas.
Phase 2: Individual survey of forestry experts
We used a survey among forestry experts (n=162) in Slovenia to explore their perceptions on the designation of forest function areas, including the importance and effectiveness of forest function areas in practicing multi-objective forest management (for details, see Simončič and Bončina, 2015; Chapter 2.3 of the dissertation).
Phase 3: 1st workshop
The 1st workshop entitled “Development of the concept of multi-objective forest management: forest functions, ecosystem services and priority areas” was organized on December 17, 2013 on Pokljuka. Sixty-six representatives of various stakeholders,
Simončič, T. Forest functions in multi-objective forest management.
Doctoral dissertation. Ljubljana, Univ. of Lj., Biotechnical Faculty, 2016
66
including the Slovenia Forest Service, Biotechnical Faculty, Department of Forestry and Renewable Forest Resources, Triglav National Park, Slovenian Forestry Institute, Ministry for Agriculture and Environment, Institute of RS for Nature Conservation, Bern University of Applied Sciences and non-governmental agencies, attended the workshop. Selection of the participants was based on their professional background; the participants most strongly engaged with the implementation of the concept of forest functions, or those with strong scientific interests in the topic, were selected.
In the workshop the results of the individual questionnaire (Phase 2) were presented to the participants. The effectiveness of the concept of forest functions was evaluated with the World Cafe method, which is a simple process for bringing people together around questions that matter (Brown and Isaacs, 2005). It is a conversational process that helps groups to engage in constructive dialogue around critical questions, to build personal relationships and to foster collaborative learning (Fouché and Light, 2010). Through a constructive dialogue, the World Cafe enables relationship building, collective discoveries and collaborative learning. Using several rounds of dialogue, where multiple groups discuss the same topics, important innovative approaches can be developed. Participants were divided into 10 groups and worked on 9 pre-selected topics (Appendix 1). The topics were selected in regard to the main weaknesses and challenges in implementing the concept of forest functions in Slovenia as identified by the literature overview (Phase 1) and individual questionnaire (Phase 2). At the end of the workshop, suggestions for improving the concept of forest functions were proposed (for details, see Bončina et al., 2014).
Phase 4: 2nd workshop
The 2nd workshop addressed the “Development of the concept of forest functions in Slovenia” and was organized on April 2, 2015 on Pokljuka. Sixty-five participants from SFS offices across Slovenia (the prevailing group), the Department of Forestry of the Biotechnical Faculty (University of Ljubljana), the Slovenian Forestry Institute, Triglav National Park and others were in attendance. About 90 % of the participants had also taken part in the first workshop. The aim of the workshop was to briefly verify the results of the previous two participatory methods (Phases 2-3), present proposed improvements of the concept of forest functions and evaluate them. The workshop was organized into three main sessions (for details see Bončina et al., 2015):
- verification and confirmation of the previous findings, - evaluation of the alternative models,
- final management recommendations on improvements of the concept of forest functions.
The verification and confirmation of previous findings was done to ensure that the results of both Phase 2 and Phase 3 were accurate and credible. Each participant was given two questionnaires; the first contained a list of 23 statements to estimate the effectiveness of the current concept of forest functions in Slovenia (Appendix 2); a 9-point Likert scale was
Simončič, T. Forest functions in multi-objective forest management.
Doctoral dissertation. Ljubljana, Univ. of Lj., Biotechnical Faculty, 2016
67
used for estimating participant disagreement (1) or agreement (9) with the statement. Many of the issues were similar to the questions from the first questionnaire (Phase 2) and to the topics of the World Cafe method (Phase 3). The second questionnaire referred to the purpose of designating forest function areas; participants evaluated with the 9-point Likert scale (1 unimportant, 9 very important) the importance of designating forest function areas (Appendix 3).
Phase 5: Consultation with case study experts
This phase was parallel with Phase 4. It was intended to identify the main weaknesses and advantages of implementation of the concept of forest functions on the ground. A questionnaire (Appendix 4) on the assessment of the concept of forest functions was sent to forest planners and local foresters from three case study areas. The issues raised in the questionnaire were also personally discussed with local foresters later on during the case study implementation of the models.
2.2 ELABORATION OF ALTERNATIVE MODELS
We elaborated two alternative models (B and C) to the current model (A), which enabled us to compare and contrast alternative changes (smaller vs. significant changes, technical vs. conceptual improvements), foster thinking among the participants that evaluated both models and generate more ideas for improvements:
- Model B: “technical” includes technical improvements (i.e. classification and mapping procedures) of the designation of forest function areas,
- Model C: “conceptual” includes both technical and conceptual improvements.
Each model was characterized by 18 dimensions, which in a simple way enabled us to describe different concepts of forest functions. The first 9 dimensions describe the technical part of the model, and the next 9 the conceptual part (Table 6).
2.3 EVALUATION OF MODELS
The models were evaluated at the workshop of forest planners (Phase 4). The evaluation followed two procedures:
- A modified H-method was applied to compare alternative Models B and C to the current Model A, to identify the main weaknesses and advantages of both alternative models and recommend suggestions for their improvement. The H-method is a tool to establish the individual attitude of each participant towards a certain problem, their negative and positive opinions and to find solutions to improve the situation (H-diagram, 2011). The participants were divided into 10 groups of 4-5 people. A moderator was randomly selected at the workshop for each group. Participants first graded the effectiveness of the model compared to the current model with a grade from 1 (not suitable) to 10 (very suitable). The estimation was an agreement among all the people in the group, and final estimation was calculated as the arithmetic mean of the
Simončič, T. Forest functions in multi-objective forest management.
Doctoral dissertation. Ljubljana, Univ. of Lj., Biotechnical Faculty, 2016
68
10 groups. In the next step, participants were asked to list up to 5 main weaknesses and
10 groups. In the next step, participants were asked to list up to 5 main weaknesses and